From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Re-roll rr/revert-cherry-pick
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 02:28:22 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111207082822.GH11737@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111207081734.GG11737@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net>
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Fine. But I would like to know which case they fell into, so I can
> learn in order to do a better job reviewing the future and know my
^in
> time is well spent.
Sorry for the nonsense. :) And now that I look back over previous
revisions of the patches, I see that I _hadn't_ clearly complained
about the same aspects of these particular commit messages before.
So what am I talking about here?
I guess it is just a pattern: commit messages I have looked at in the
sequencer series lately seem to focus too much on implementation
details and not enough on the "big picture" of what the user or
internal API user will experience. One symptom is that I get lost in
reading the commit message without looking at the patch. Another
symptom is that the commit messages tend to mention the particular
(private) functions that were changed, instead of the more prominent
(often public) callers that the reader might have cause to call.
Hoping that clarifies a little,
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-07 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-07 6:37 [PATCH 0/5] Re-roll rr/revert-cherry-pick Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 6:37 ` [PATCH 1/5] revert: free msg in format_todo() Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 6:43 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-07 6:37 ` [PATCH 2/5] revert: make commit subjects in insn sheet optional Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 7:02 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-09 5:57 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-09 6:12 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-09 19:35 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-09 19:44 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-09 19:50 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-09 22:30 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 6:37 ` [PATCH 3/5] revert: simplify getting commit subject in format_todo() Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 7:06 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-07 6:37 ` [PATCH 4/5] revert: allow mixed pick and revert instructions Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 7:45 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-09 5:34 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 6:37 ` [PATCH 5/5] revert: simplify communicating command-line arguments Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 8:09 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-07 8:17 ` [PATCH 0/5] Re-roll rr/revert-cherry-pick Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-07 8:26 ` Ramkumar Ramachandra
2011-12-07 9:56 ` Jonathan Nieder
2011-12-07 8:28 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2011-12-08 18:41 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111207082822.GH11737@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=artagnon@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.